Judge slashed Bluetooth fees that 'no reasonable' client would pay

, The National Law Journal

   | 2 Comments

A federal judge has slashed by more than half the plaintiffs fees in a closely watched consumer class action involving Bluetooth headsets, concluding that "no reasonable paying client" would pay such an amount.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Darren McKinney, American Tort Reform Association, Washington, D.C.

    Why do judges even entertain such blatantly parasitic litigation? All plaintiffs' lawyers bringing lawsuits-without-demonstrable-injuries should be immediately threatened with contempt charges and ordered never to return to court again with a similarly shameless and speculative complaint. Once more earns 30 days in the cooler.

  • Unidentified Attorney

    This article is very poorly written. I simply can't figure out what happened -- beyond the broad brush that some fees were cut -- and there is no information that will allow me to go to the original source. What is the name of the case? What is the citation at the district court level? Is it published in Fed Supp or FRD? What are the party names on the appellate opinion? What is the citation? Was it published? When? Article says August 19, but of what year? Terrible writing.
    BTW, the case was published by the 9th Cir. at 654 F.3d 935 in 2011

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202566529410

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.